Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
- Col. D.S.Dhillon, complainant has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that after going through the advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar dated 18.4.2016,complainant has purchased two Air Conditioners one vide Invoice No. T4040117 and Invoice No. R40069 having capacity 1 ton of Panasonic make for Rs. 26400/- and the other vide Invoice No. T40152 as well as Invoice No. R40098 having capacity of 1.5 ton of Panasonic make for Rs. 30,300/- i.e. total for Rs. 56,700/-. According to the complainant as per advertisement many free facilities were to be given to the customers such as free installation as well as free stabilizer . The complainant was surprised to know that the opposite party asked the complainant to pay the bill as per the invoices mentioned above . whereas the installation and stabilizer were charged but had to be provided free as per the advertisement. The complainant approached opposite party regarding the charging of the abovesaid amount but the opposite party refused to reimburse the over charged amount of Rs. 6000/-. The complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel on 3.5.2016 but despite that opposite party has refused to reimburse the over charged amount of Rs. 6000/-. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
- Opposite party be directed to reimburse the over charged amount of Rs. 6000/- ;
- Opposite party be also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50000/- for undue harassment caused to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that on the basis of newspaper advertisement , the complainant purchased the products. It was submitted that product to be given were under combo system i.e. AC , its installation and stabilizer . This fact is very much in the knowledge of the complainant but the complainant intentionally did not disclose in the instant complaint. As far as bills are concerned, they are under total combo price and not of individual products. The opposite party has to make compliance of all the rules as per norms of income tax/sales tax and accordingly bills were issued, but strictly as per combo price offer. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.B.S.Bedi,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Bajaj Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 .
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it is clear that complainant had purchased two air conditioners from the opposite party vide Invoice No. T4040117, R40069 having capacity 1 ton of Panasonic make for Rs. 26400/- and the other vide Invoice No. T40152 as well as Invoice No. R40098 having capacity of 1.5 ton of Panasonic make for Rs. 30,300/- i.e. total for Rs. 56,700/-. Copies of Invoices account for Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 on record. It was the case of the complainant that opposite party gave advertisement under which many free facilities were to be given to customers such as free installation as well as free stabilizer. But , however, when the complainant received the Air conditioners , he was surprised when he was asked to pay the bill as per the invoices mentioned above, in which installation and stabilizer were charged, which had to be provided free as per the advertisement. When the complainant approached the opposite party regarding over charging to the tune of Rs. 6000/-, opposite party refused to reimburse the said amount. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that product to be given were under combo system i.e. AC, its installation and stabilizer which was very much in the knowledge of the complainant.
7. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased the Air Conditioners from the opposite party after going through the advertisement , copy of the advertisement accounts for Ex.OP9. As per advertisement many free facilities were to be given to the customers such as free installation as well as free stabilizer. However, the opposite party has charged Rs. 23,400/- as price of AC, Rs. 1000/- installation charges vide invoice Ex.C-2 and Rs. 2000/- for stabilizer vide invoice Ex.C-3. Opposite party has also charged for the second Air conditioner Rs. 27,300/- as price of AC, Rs. 1000/- vide invoice Ex.C-4, Rs. 2000/- as installation charges vide invoice Ex.C-5. As such the opposite party has charged Rs. 6000/- in excess . The plea of the opposite party that the complainant had purchased combo products, is not supported by any evidence as the opposite party has not produced any document showing that the complainant had purchased combo products. So the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 6000/- charged in excess.
8. In our considered opinion, complainant has proved on record the allegations made in the complaint against opposite party and opposite party is liable to reimburse the amount of Rs. 6000/- charged in excess from the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order ; failing which , awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
